Best new loudspeaker

MrTennis, I've played string bass since 7th grade, piano since I was 3 (I was getting lessons that early :/ ), guitar since 6th grade and flute since 6th grade. More recently I've added a variety of synthesizers...

(http://www.myspace.com/salubriousinvertebrae and http://www.myspace.com/thunderboltpagoda)
-obviously I am still playing. I've also been producing CDs and LPs for the last 22 years. Of course, none of **that** makes me an authority about sound :), but-

By no means does a Quad play all those things right, regardless of the amplifier driving it, even one of ours. It lacks bass performance, is dynamically restricted, is not the last word in transparency and is rolled-off on the highs. Not to say that its a bad speaker- I think they sound great! and I like them a lot. But *I* think the speakers I have at home sound better as they are equally transparent, have frequency extension, way more dynamic range and set up easier in the room (meaning I get better room interaction).

Now- you have to admit you have a preference (and not because I say so, simply because it *is* so); that the Quad is in fact not the **best** speaker around, even though it is excellent, that your feelings about the speaker are in fact your own opinion.

OR- take back all your comments about how there is no 'best amplifier'.

hi mr g:

if i heard a cone design that had all of the admirable characteristsics of a planar/dipole, i would consider it for purchase.

unfortunately, every cone design i have heard has exhibited "colorations" which i do not like.

there is a very good chance i will purchase two pair of quads unlimited quad 57s, realizing limitations in dynamics and bass.

Perfectly fine by me MRT. My admittedly non-inductive reading of your words is that the quads unlimited 57s were your favorite speakers at the time of submission of your last post.

the quad 57 has the least inaccurate midrange, period. i am surprised you have not revealed it. it is not attenuated in the treble, but it is dynamically restricted nad attenuated in the bass. greater transparency does not guarantee less timbral inaccuracy. where the quad excels is in accuracy of timbre. there is no speaker which surpasses it in that respect.

obviously any statements without definitive proof are opinions. i will admit that. i am curious as to what speaker system you own.

by the way, i visited you at the sahara hotel at a ces during the 90's. you remarked that you like a lean sound.
i have a witness who will confirm your comment.

too much transparency and accuracy of timbre are not synonymous.

i consider the quads unlimited reproduction of the original quad esl to be the least inaccurate with respect to timbre. my concern is the bass response as well as the susceptibility of the panel to degradation due to temparature and humidity. i am also not looking forward to having a speaker dependent upon the quality of the ac.

the alternatives to my ears are few, so it may be a comprimise among the imperfect speakers. if you have any ideas as to a speaker system which is minimally erroneous when recreating the sound of an instrument, please let me know.

thanks